The shifting meaning of 'progressive'; also, air and angels

[tree_and_leaf]

Various people have pointed out that one of the difficulties of the new Trek film is that things have changed so much that what looked progressive back in the day (the status of women in Star Fleet and presence of minorities or non-Americans in the crew) now looks positively bastion-of-male-white-American-privilege.

Sometimes, though, it's weird little details that bring back how much things have changed. I was flicking through the production notes on Memory Alpha for "Balance of Terror" (a very good episode indeed, with Romulans, Enterprise crew-members being bigoted and Kirk calling them on it, and a very non black-and-white enemy - and Mark Lenard, who is always good value even when not playing Spock's dad). The episode, though, starts with a wedding (apparently, and I'd forgotten this, the "Enterprise" has a chapel), at which Kirk officiates (which also makes me wonder, as a Patrick O'Brian fan, if the Enterprise ever has services which mostly consist of Kirk reading The Articles of War Star Fleet regulations, and if there is a (suitably space themed, and naturally inter-religious and non-specific) version of the Naval Prayer. Unlikely, I suppose, given the apparent American dominance of Star Fleet, but one can speculate.

Anyway: what caught my eye was that the episode notes draw attention to the fact that the bride genuflects to the altar in the chapel, and that this is noteworthy as a positive-without-making-a-very-special-episode-of-it depiction of Roman Catholic practice on 1960s television (also worth noting in that apparently, not every human member of Star Fleet is an atheist or a vague sort-of-deist after all). Was it really that noteworthy? One would hope that this is special pleading on the note-writers (who also note that some Anglicans genuflect - though their deduction from this, that it's not a markedly Catholic practice, is a bit shakier than they think!), but - I do not know. Any thoughts from older Americans - was this really progressive in the early sixties? Kennedy was Catholic, after all....

On a totally unrelated but extremely cool note, I have found a glossary of Naval Slang. It is quite fascinating (did you know that 'angel' is a unit measuring 1000ft of height?) Or that 'rabbits' is used to designate anything taken ashore from a Navy ship, especially if smuggled?

Heigh ho - back to work!

Comments

[sara]

Well, I disagree regularly with Rowan Williams (who only thinks he's Pope); I suspect she'll be able to disagree regularly with the Bishop of Rome....

[twistedchick]

It's more a matter of being willing to stand up to her bishop than to the Pope. The American bishops function somewhat separately from Rome in terms of how they administer their dioceses. Some of them are to the right of Benedict; some are still willing to allow people to exercise their individual consciences -- as well they should. It is the duty of a Catholic to be informed, to weigh all the evidence and to make an informed decision and stand by that decision -- regardless of whether it agrees with Rome. Indeed, a significant number of canonized saints were persecuted by the Roman hierarchy for taking stands that were not considered politically suitable by their current popes.

[tree_and_leaf]

I think that's a bit unfair to ++Rowan. I don't agree with everything he's said or done either, but whatever his faults, attempting to his own views on the Communion over everyone else's head isn't one of them. (Indeed, some people would argue that that is in itself one of his faults...)

[sara]

Well, there we'll have to disagree; as an American Episcopalian, I have a great deal of difficulty with his attempts to impose his supposed authority over us.

But then, that's why nobody in my family is Roman Catholic any more; we're basically too small-r republican to want some unelected guy bossing us around.

[tree_and_leaf]

It's curious how different things look from the other side of the Atlantic; the usual criticism of RW from English Anglicans is that he's too prone to let himself be shoved about by GAFCON and their friends because he's terrified of precipitating a split in the communion, and that he's being driven rather than being led.

The trouble is, I think, that everyone has spent several centuries studiously avoiding thinking about the differences in concepts of ecclesial authority across the Communion, and now it's come back to bite us. (It also doesn't help that the C of E tends to be totally blind to the fact that there's more than one way to be Episcopalian. See the kerfuffle when RW said that it wouldn't be the end of the world if the C of E was no longer established, and various people said this would be the end of Anglicanism - overlooking the fact that it's the C of E that's the anomaly, really).